[flagged]
This isn't the first time we've had to ask you to adhere to the guidelines. If you up this style of commenting, we'll have to ban the account.
The wealthiest folks have the resources to continually and almost casually undermine institutions, while it takes enormous effort for the larger public to push back. Most people are just trying to live their lives while the Murdochs, Kochs, and others can keep throwing money and bodies at corrupting the country. For every win against the anti-Democratic corruptions, there's two or five losses. They pile up.
But the fall of the U.S. has seemed inevitable for decades. As someone who is here and isn't likely to leave -- my family is here, too many people to muster out and I won't leave them behind -- this is going to suck pretty horribly for some time. If we're very lucky, this will be the wakeup call the U.S. needs and when the dust clears we may rebuild something better. If we're not... well, I don't want to dwell on that.
It has shaken my faith in democracy, but at the same time, there's nothing else, so I have no choice but to try to fight for it in what ways I can.
I tell everyone the system can handle it. But Schmidt on yt isn’t wrong.
Excellent username
Hence why they spend billions on propaganda tools like Fox News or influencers (Joe Rogan, Tim Pool...) propping up increasingly right-wing presidents. So far they've been successful: Raegan, Bush & cie. have been slowly but surely making things easier for the wealthy and harder for the workers.
Republicans have always used right-wing populism to get their ways (Blaming migrants, blaming LGBT, blaming leftists). Notice how pro-businesss policies are the only consistent trait between GOP presidency.
Trump is a turning point, he is the first one to do right-wing populism for its own sake instead of simply being pro-business. This is fascism. Here is my preferred definition of fascism if you seek one [1].
Trump is no singular phenomenon, you can compare him in some ways to previous or contemporary fascists: Putin, Mussolini... They all have in common a support from the oligarchy, and a hatred of minorities and leftists.
Until we fix the power imbalances of our democracies and rid it of all money's influence (easier said than done), we will suffer through fascism every 80 years or so. The time it takes for new oligarchs to emerge and accumulate the wealth necessary to dictate politics again.
It doesn't even fit that, it's worse. In Idiocracy President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho actually chose to find educated / smart people to make decisions.
In this setup it's all politicians and political hangers on making decisions about things they seem to have limited education on what they manage.
Take this as a lesson, and defend your democracy while you still can.
He did not hide his fascist and dictatorial desires and he was open about how he wanted to dismantle the government. When he lost in 2020 he threw a fit and tried to have people do a coup. People did in fact elect him, I can just hope that his actions don't leave too much lasting damage here in Canada. (Maybe de-funding US science will help start to reverse decades of brain drain.)
The other was selected by party leaders after the primary was over.
"What now" is we keep getting closer to autocracy until we're unambiguously fully there, or a less-than-amicable divorce. That's about it. The former is by far the more likely of the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
The OP is correct, Americans collectively own this just as other countries' nationals have owned responsibility for the bad governments they've put into power. If the general response is one of absolving themselves of responsibility there won't be the necessary level of reflection and reform to prevent it from happening again.
As it is the damage done to US power and credibility will take decades to fix, and it's only 100 days in.
I'm not sure this accurately conveys the situation. American voters have been dissatisfied with the lesser of two evils choice foisted upon them every 4 years for decades. We're 75 years into endless wars. Massive numbers of union high paying jobs have been shipped overseas since the 80s hollowing out the middle and working class.
One could easily see the votes as being more anti-establishment than anything else.
edit: I love how people downvote comments they don't like in political discussions, even when they're just attempting to foster understanding by sharing a perspective, and not prescriptive or pejorative in any way.
Yes, when you have to vote between the lesser of two evils, but one of them is blatantly more evil and incompetent than the other, you're responsible for choosing the more evil and incompetent option and the damage that results.
No system is perfect, and few countries provide morally and politically pure options to vote for in national elections. So an informed and engaged population often needs to vote tactically, understanding that establishments change slowly, and work to elect more effective candidates at local & state level who can work their way up to the national stage.
Voting in the anti-establishment choice just because voters are upset that progress is slow and politics is hard is the stuff of tantrums, and voting adults are supposed to be beyond that.
I'm not here for that. Just explaining what I understand of what the blue collar folks I know are thinking.
I'm not saying that out of anger, that's just the nature of democracy and that the corollary of a voting public being able to choose their leaders means they're responsible when they make bad choices. That, in turn should trigger national debates, reflection, and reform hopefully, else the US will continue to head down an ever-increasingly authoritarian and populist path.
I certainly don't want the US to go down that path, nor do I enjoy seeing the damage being done now. I just believe that if we coddle voters who made terrible political choices they're just going to keep making those bad choices election after election.
> Not trying to argue, though blame is deserved for those who voted for Trump this time around.
> I'm not saying that out of anger, that's just the nature of democracy and that the corollary of a voting public being able to choose their leaders means they're responsible when they make bad choices. That, in turn should trigger national debates, reflection, and reform hopefully, else the US will continue to head down an ever-increasingly authoritarian and populist path.
Is almost to a word how the Right feels about the Left as well. We're watching that play out. Conflict escalation is even less fun on the societal scale.
I could maybe understand why people voted for the anti-establishment candidate the first time around. Legitimate frustrations exist with a system many felt wasn't working for them. But the second time around, with clear evidence of the consequences, is not defensible and shouldn't be excused.
This is a form of reactionary populism and it's deeply dangerous for the US's power, prosperity, and political freedoms. Ask Argentinians what Peronism, as another form of anti-establishment populism, did for them. There are countless other examples to learn from too.
Regardless of motivation, electoral choices have consequences that voters collectively own.
Again, it’s not like we haven’t seen this before in other countries that have voted in populists. It’s always the same cycle: Widespread dissatisfaction promotes populists who correctly identify legitimate problems but offer implausibly simple solutions to solve them. Voters choose the populists out of anger & frustration, only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.
Trump is a populist and we’re already seeing that institutional damage merely 100 days in. There’s no indication that the outcome will be any better than all the other historical parallels.
I watch all sorts of news. Ultra-liberal Democracy Now!, CNN, ABC, NBC, podcasts on the left and right, right-leaning Fox, etc.
I can say that the right is cheering perceived win after win. From their perspective, tariffs are bringing manufacturing jobs back, what they see as corruption is being rooted out, government is being made leaner, more efficient, and more local. Law is being enforced.
The left seems to be focused on publicizing what they see as losses, assuming that the right will inevitably see the self-evident error of their ways. I don't think this is likely to happen.
Surprisingly to many of them, he wasn't crazy, and actually tried to do a lot of the things they were hoping a non-establishment president would do. But then the bureaucracy dragged its feet, ignored his orders, and generally did its best to spoil his first term, giving a middle finger to the voters and saying, "Screw you, we're doing things our way." So in 2024 the voters said, "No, screw you," and here we are.
I find that this does little to help either side understand the (often legitimate!) concerns of the other. It seems like there is an inexorable wedge being driven between both sides, by both sides. I'm not sure how we address that. And I'm not sure how to reconcile the factors which drive each side without addressing it.
Incorrect. Stop lying.
Where did I absolve anything? I just corrected something that was wrong. I didn't vote for the guy either time, I don't like this either.